The second point is that if the compensation (arsh) for virginity is taken once, it is not permitted to take it a second time, for it then becomes as if it were non-existent, so nothing becomes obligatory for her except the mahr of a previously married woman (thayyib). The mahr of a thayyib combined with the compensation for virginity is equal to the mahr mithl of a virgin, so it is not permitted to increase it beyond that. And Allah knows best.

Section: There is no difference between whether the woman who has been subjected to intercourse is a stranger or one of his prohibited kin (mahram). This is the choice of Abu Bakr, and it is the school of al-Nakha'i, Makhul, Abu Hanifa, and al-Shafi'i. There is another narration from Ahmad that his female mahram have no mahr. This is the view of al-Sha'bi, because their prohibition is an original (asli) prohibition, so no mahr is due for them, like sodomy. This differs from one who is prohibited due to affinity (musaharah), for her prohibition is emergent (tari'). Likewise, the ruling should be the same for one prohibited due to suckling, because that is also emergent. There is another narration from Ahmad that whoever has her daughter prohibited [to him] has no mahr, such as the mother, daughter, and sister, and whoever has her daughter permitted [to him], such as the paternal aunt and maternal aunt, is entitled to the mahr, because their prohibition is lighter. Our argument is that what is guaranteed for a stranger is guaranteed for a relative, such as wealth and the mahr of a slave-woman. Furthermore, he has destroyed the usufruct of her private part through intercourse, so her mahr is binding upon him, just like a stranger. Also, it is a subject guaranteed against others, so its guarantee becomes obligatory upon him, like wealth; in this way, it differs from sodomy, for that is not guaranteed against anyone.

Section: The mahr is not obligatory for intercourse in the anus, nor for sodomy, because the Shari'a has not stipulated a substitute for it, nor is it the destruction of anything, so it resembles a kiss and intercourse other than in the private part. It is not obligatory for a consenting participant in adultery, because she is the one offering that which is due to be offered to her, so nothing is obligatory for her, just as if she permitted him to cut off her hand and he cut it off, unless she is a slave-woman, in which case the mahr belongs to her master and is not waived by her consent, because the right belongs to someone else, so it resembles the case where she permits the cutting off of her hand.

Section: If he divorces his wife with one pronouncement before consummation, and he assumes it does not render her definitively divorced (la tabin), then he has intercourse with her, the mahr mithl becomes binding upon him, as well as half of the specified mahr. Malik said: Only one mahr is binding upon him. Our argument is that the specified amount is halved by his divorce, by His Almighty's saying: {then half of what you have specified}. His intercourse after